http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3651
--- Comment #3 from nfxjfg gmail.com 2010-01-28 00:55:57 PST ---
Don: I'm pretty sure my bug report is correct. enums are the *only* type that
behave different here. Further, if you get the mangle of a function or template
that use enums as parameters, the enum gets mangled using the type name, not
the base type.
Why do you think the current behavior would be correct? Why would .mangleof for
a type return the mangle for a completely *different* type?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Don: I'm pretty sure my bug report is correct. enums are the *only* type that
behave different here. Further, if you get the mangle of a function or template
that use enums as parameters, the enum gets mangled using the type name, not
the base type.
Why do you think the current behavior would be correct? Why would .mangleof for
a type return the mangle for a completely *different* type?

Because enums aren't strong types. typeof(item) is int, not foo. 'foo' just
seems to be an alias for int. (I think the existing behaviour is stupid, BTW).
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Even then, typeof(foo) is foo, and not int. It's only logical that foo.mangleof
should be the mangle for foo, not int.
I don't know about item.mangelof. Is that even allowed?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------